## Facts

- Power Engineering Company (PEC) operated a metal-finishing facility in Denver, Colorado that generated hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- Colorado administered an EPA-authorized hazardous-waste program through its environmental agency and issued compliance and civil-penalty orders against PEC for hazardous-waste violations.
- PEC did not fully comply with the state orders.
- A disputed obligation was RCRA’s “financial assurance” requirement, requiring facilities to show ability to fund closure and post-closure care; EPA calculated required assurance at $2,119,044.
- Colorado did not seek financial-assurance relief in its enforcement action.
- EPA filed a federal civil enforcement action seeking injunctive relief compelling PEC to satisfy the federal financial-assurance requirement, notwithstanding the state’s prior enforcement activity (“overfiling”).

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA permits EPA to bring a federal enforcement action in a state with an authorized hazardous-waste program after the state has pursued its own enforcement action concerning the same facility.
2. Whether state enforcement actions, orders, or settlements bar a later federal action under doctrines such as statutory preclusion or claim preclusion when the federal suit seeks different relief.
3. Whether EPA’s interpretation that it retains concurrent enforcement authority in authorized states is entitled to Chevron deference.
4. Whether PEC could be ordered to provide financial assurances in the amount determined by the district court.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the United States.
- RCRA does not bar EPA from bringing a federal enforcement action in an authorized state after state enforcement, particularly where the federal action seeks compliance with different requirements (financial assurance).
- EPA’s interpretation that it retains concurrent enforcement authority, including the ability to overfile, was reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.
- The court upheld the injunction requiring PEC to provide financial assurances of $2,119,044.

## Legal Principles

- Authorization of a state hazardous-waste program under RCRA does not extinguish EPA’s independent federal enforcement authority; federal and state enforcement may be concurrent.
- RCRA’s civil-enforcement provisions broadly authorize EPA to commence actions to restrain violations and secure compliance, and the statute contains no express prohibition on federal enforcement following state action.
- A state enforcement action resolving certain compliance issues does not, without clear statutory command, foreclose federal enforcement seeking different relief for distinct RCRA obligations.
- Where RCRA is ambiguous on the extent of EPA’s enforcement authority in authorized states, a reasonable EPA interpretation may receive Chevron deference.
- Financial assurance is an enforceable compliance obligation under RCRA, and EPA may compel it even if the state declines to pursue that remedy.

## Conclusion

The court held that EPA retained concurrent authority to enforce RCRA in Colorado despite the state’s authorized program and earlier enforcement, and it affirmed an order requiring PEC to provide $2,119,044 in financial assurances to ensure compliance with federal hazardous-waste closure and post-closure obligations.


United States v. Power Eng’g Co., 303 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2002)